HOW NEGATION MEANS: NEGATION AND MENTAL PROCESSING
Jorunn Hetland
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
[email protected]
Keywords: negation, operators, mental processing, embodiment, perceptual symbols
How can we model nobody, nothing and not in a framework where meaning is constituted by
perceptual symbols? In my talk, I shall explore the meaning of negation, drawing on insights into
mental simulation as outlined by Barsalou (1999) and Strømnes (2006).
Kaup et al. (2007:269) hypothesise that the processing of negative sentences typically involves
the manipulation of two simulations, the expected situation followed by the actual situation, whereas
the processing of affirmative sentences only involves the actual case (the “two-step simulation
hypothesis of negation”). That a sentence with negation involves one more processing step than the
corresponding affirmative sentence, is undoubtedly correct (although the term “expected” for the first
step may be ill-chosen). However, when a bottom-up strategy is chosen, a stepwise processing is the
normal procedure not only for negation, but for all complex simulations. Processing normally starts
from the first word of an utterance and is adjusted stepwise as more information is added (cf.
Bergen/Chang 2013). As for operators, they all depend on their scope for interpretation. If an operator
precedes its scope, the operator is stored in working memory until the relevant scope has been
established.
Like all operators, negation is parasitic on its scope. To understand the meaning of nobody, the
first step must be a simulation of the meaning of somebody. To understand the sentence There is no
girl present, we first have to establish a simulation of a scenario where there is a girl present.
Although processing is stepwise, the resulting complex meaning is one coherent mental model. Both
the positive and the negative version are highly dependent on the relevant context.
In my talk, I shall show that negation does not mean deletion. Rather, we can think of negation
as a veil, a shadow covering its scope:
There is no girl in this picture
The scope of negation is always visible behind its curtain; negation is transparent. The transparency
of negation seems to underlie all psychological effects of negative messages: an instruction not to do
something may easily result in the adverse conduct. This goes for the admonition of children – and for
the instruction of adults (Don’t think of an elephant). Negated messages can ruin a person’s
reputation (Mrs. Smith did not shoot her husband). The reason is that the positive counterpart is
always present under the transparent veil of negation.
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577660.
Bergen, Benjamin & Nancy Chang. 2013. Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G.
Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 168-190. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kaup, Barbara, Jana Lüdke & Rolf A. Zwaan. 2007. The experiential view of language comprehension:
How is negation represented? In F. Schmalhofer & C.A. Perfetti (eds.), Higher level Language
Processes in the Brain, 255-288. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strømnes, Frode J. 2006. The Fall of the Word and the Rise of the Mental Model. Frankfurt a.M.:
Lang.